Subject:
|
Re: Parts license
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Mon, 25 Sep 2000 18:23:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1237 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> Also, (overzealous snipping means I removed the cite by mistake) on the bit
> about charging a nominal fee for redistribution, this is common practice.
> Disallowing it means you are enabling freeriders. This tends to discourage
> people from even using the stuff in the first place, as GNU has learned.
Hmm. I'm not reading your tone clearly on this. I *assume* you (Larry)
would prefer that we not specify $$$ limits on redistribution.
My take: I wrote the clause in, because I figured people would want it.
But I think freeriders will short themselves out, because we're requiring
they point out where they got the library, and how users can get there
themselves. So no one will get burned (more than once).
Steve
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Parts license
|
| (...) I think a monetary limit on a redistribution charge is better than disallowing fees entirely, which I think is what Jacob wanted. My point is that if it actually costs money to distribute, and you prevent cost recovery, you discourage people (...) (24 years ago, 26-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Parts license
|
| (...) I suggested a reword for it. However I'm not sure your likes and dislikes are germane. The intent of this paragraph is to ensure that if LDraw.org should cease to exist, it is clear what should happen. That is, that the rights should revert (...) (24 years ago, 22-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
73 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
